Forums

Changes/Improvements to FSS Topic

I had originally posted this to the "1000 mile" thread, but it got lost in the debate and I wanted to get some feedback because it seems like a viable update WIS could make, and could help dramatically reduce the appearance of having a recruiting advantage with two teams in the same world.

With FSS, what if you could scout states by division? Say for Florida, you have options as to what divisions you want FSS for. You could pick D3, D2, D1, or any combination. However, I think this would eliminate the perceived benefit of FSS now, that is if you scout states with a D1 school, you get all info for all divisions, which would benefit your D2/D3 school without having to spend said D2/D3 school's cash. You could also track by user, who scouted which levels. If a D1 coach (with a D2/D3 team) is scouting D3 recruits, chances are he is using his D1 team to cheat the system. I think it could also impact the cost of FSS, by varying the $ cost per recruit, depending on the level.

Pulldowns - You would have to purchase the division above to see the potentials for pulldowns, but as I show above, it should end up costing you less money to do than currently.
Dropdowns - They would appear when they drop, so if you just bought D3 for one state, as initial D2 players drop, they would show up.
Prestige - Not sure what you mean with prestige changes, I'm assuming you mean that an A+ school sees more D3 recruits initially than a C- school. I'm not sure on the level of disparity here (i.e. does an A+ school see 20 more recruits across the country? 100?) but maybe one of the game gurus has some data and could chime in.

Furthermore, the $ per recruit could change. i just used 24/16/8 as an example, but I think the ratio should either be 2/3 and 1/3 (for D2 and D3, as a % of D1 cost) or maybe 3/4 and 1/2. Again, if someone has the numbers on the typical cost per recruit for FSS and could post em here, that would be a great place to start. The basic premise is that people are paying for information that they don't need/use, especially at the D3 level. I don't give a damn about D1 potentials at D3, but yet I'm still paying for them. Also, by limiting access to divisions and making it a user's choice to purchase, it should make it easier to spot if coaches are using FSS to benefit multiple teams.

Prestige - Not sure what you mean with prestige changes, I'm assuming you mean that an A+ school sees more D3 recruits initially than a C- school. I'm not sure on the level of disparity here (i.e. does an A+ school see 20 more recruits across the country? 100?) but maybe one of the game gurus has some data and could chime in.

I think a couple of things come into play here. In some cases, an A+ D3 school can see 20 or so more recruits in a state than a C- D3 school. I'm sure the higher prestige programs would argue they wouldn't want a system like this because they're forced to pay more per state than a worse program. Second, many D1 teams (and I'm assuming some D2 teams) have enough leftover after recruiting that they FSS for the following season as soon as new recruits are generated. Using a D2 team as an example, say they FSS for the following season with a C- prestige, go on a big run in the NT, and get a prestige bump to A-. That prestige bump gives them access to several more recruits that will now show up on their D2 screen that previously showed on on their D1 screen. Using a cost/recruit system, how would you accommodate for these new recruits? I think this is what Tarvolon was getting at when he mentioned prestige changes.

Also I would assume a school with rollover cash could purchase a state during a season, have a good year and get a prestige bump and pay less than they would have at the end of the season...at least in D3.

Posted by darnoc29099 on 8/2/2013 11:55:00 AM (view original):Prestige - Not sure what you mean with prestige changes, I'm assuming you mean that an A+ school sees more D3 recruits initially than a C- school. I'm not sure on the level of disparity here (i.e. does an A+ school see 20 more recruits across the country? 100?) but maybe one of the game gurus has some data and could chime in.

I think a couple of things come into play here. In some cases, an A+ D3 school can see 20 or so more recruits in a state than a C- D3 school. I'm sure the higher prestige programs would argue they wouldn't want a system like this because they're forced to pay more per state than a worse program. Second, many D1 teams (and I'm assuming some D2 teams) have enough leftover after recruiting that they FSS for the following season as soon as new recruits are generated. Using a D2 team as an example, say they FSS for the following season with a C- prestige, go on a big run in the NT, and get a prestige bump to A-. That prestige bump gives them access to several more recruits that will now show up on their D2 screen that previously showed on on their D1 screen. Using a cost/recruit system, how would you accommodate for these new recruits? I think this is what Tarvolon was getting at when he mentioned prestige changes.

Thanks for the clarification darnoc, that makes sense. I think that the engine could "refresh" during these periods, both for dropdowns and prestige changes. My understanding is that when the world turns over, prior to recruiting starts, the prestige gets updated. A refresh could occur to update all team's recruits based on the new prestige. I would assume that this currently happens anyway, to update a team's recruit search screen, it would simply be a matter of applying FSS to these new recruits if a coach purchased that state/division. I also think that most coaches, at D3 anyway, would typically purchase D2 as well in order to search for pulldowns. That would effectively negate any missed recruits.

Posted by darnoc29099 on 8/2/2013 11:55:00 AM (view original):Prestige - Not sure what you mean with prestige changes, I'm assuming you mean that an A+ school sees more D3 recruits initially than a C- school. I'm not sure on the level of disparity here (i.e. does an A+ school see 20 more recruits across the country? 100?) but maybe one of the game gurus has some data and could chime in.

I think a couple of things come into play here. In some cases, an A+ D3 school can see 20 or so more recruits in a state than a C- D3 school. I'm sure the higher prestige programs would argue they wouldn't want a system like this because they're forced to pay more per state than a worse program. Second, many D1 teams (and I'm assuming some D2 teams) have enough leftover after recruiting that they FSS for the following season as soon as new recruits are generated. Using a D2 team as an example, say they FSS for the following season with a C- prestige, go on a big run in the NT, and get a prestige bump to A-. That prestige bump gives them access to several more recruits that will now show up on their D2 screen that previously showed on on their D1 screen. Using a cost/recruit system, how would you accommodate for these new recruits? I think this is what Tarvolon was getting at when he mentioned prestige changes.

Thanks for the clarification darnoc, that makes sense. I think that the engine could "refresh" during these periods, both for dropdowns and prestige changes. My understanding is that when the world turns over, prior to recruiting starts, the prestige gets updated. A refresh could occur to update all team's recruits based on the new prestige. I would assume that this currently happens anyway, to update a team's recruit search screen, it would simply be a matter of applying FSS to these new recruits if a coach purchased that state/division. I also think that most coaches, at D3 anyway, would typically purchase D2 as well in order to search for pulldowns. That would effectively negate any missed recruits.

But what he is saying is if you pay for KY and get 22 recruits your prestige goes up and now see 32 recruits, you only payed for 22 recruits. Whereas another coach waits till the end of the year and now has to pay for 32 recruits. You both get 32 recruits, but you paid less.

Posted by darnoc29099 on 8/2/2013 11:55:00 AM (view original):Prestige - Not sure what you mean with prestige changes, I'm assuming you mean that an A+ school sees more D3 recruits initially than a C- school. I'm not sure on the level of disparity here (i.e. does an A+ school see 20 more recruits across the country? 100?) but maybe one of the game gurus has some data and could chime in.

I think a couple of things come into play here. In some cases, an A+ D3 school can see 20 or so more recruits in a state than a C- D3 school. I'm sure the higher prestige programs would argue they wouldn't want a system like this because they're forced to pay more per state than a worse program. Second, many D1 teams (and I'm assuming some D2 teams) have enough leftover after recruiting that they FSS for the following season as soon as new recruits are generated. Using a D2 team as an example, say they FSS for the following season with a C- prestige, go on a big run in the NT, and get a prestige bump to A-. That prestige bump gives them access to several more recruits that will now show up on their D2 screen that previously showed on on their D1 screen. Using a cost/recruit system, how would you accommodate for these new recruits? I think this is what Tarvolon was getting at when he mentioned prestige changes.

Thanks for the clarification darnoc, that makes sense. I think that the engine could "refresh" during these periods, both for dropdowns and prestige changes. My understanding is that when the world turns over, prior to recruiting starts, the prestige gets updated. A refresh could occur to update all team's recruits based on the new prestige. I would assume that this currently happens anyway, to update a team's recruit search screen, it would simply be a matter of applying FSS to these new recruits if a coach purchased that state/division. I also think that most coaches, at D3 anyway, would typically purchase D2 as well in order to search for pulldowns. That would effectively negate any missed recruits.

But what he is saying is if you pay for KY and get 22 recruits your prestige goes up and now see 32 recruits, you only payed for 22 recruits. Whereas another coach waits till the end of the year and now has to pay for 32 recruits. You both get 32 recruits, but you paid less.

This is true, but I don't see it as a huge negative/detriment. Filling classes and having cash left over should be a more viable strategy, IMO, and this is a (small) step in that direction.

And I say that without any self-interest as someone who runs zone and so often does not fill all 12 spots.

As a D2 coach though, I do have some issue with the idea of paying *more* to see D1 and D2.

It is possible to battle low D1 teams (certainly sims at any rate) for pulldown candidates, but it can be tough because of the $ disadvantage. Squeezing the D2 teams further would make it even tougher. This might well benefit low D1 teams (fewer cash needs to be allotted to battles with D2 schools), but at the expense of D2 teams who reply heavily on pulldowns.

Posted by zbrent716 on 8/2/2013 12:36:00 PM (view original):As a D2 coach though, I do have some issue with the idea of paying *more* to see D1 and D2.

It is possible to battle low D1 teams (certainly sims at any rate) for pulldown candidates, but it can be tough because of the $ disadvantage. Squeezing the D2 teams further would make it even tougher. This might well benefit low D1 teams (fewer cash needs to be allotted to battles with D2 schools), but at the expense of D2 teams who reply heavily on pulldowns.

This is true, but I think there is a bigger problem with the huge difference between D1 money and D2 money. On average, D3 is 60% of what D2 is (money per open scholarship, money per NT game). D2, however, is about 30% of what D1 is. Therein lies the problem. A team with 3 open scholarships, in a decent conference (meaning 3 teams in the NT playing 7 games, and 2 teams in the PIT playing 5 games) makes the following amounts:

Maybe this is meant to provide a sense of realism, as the difference between D1 and D2 is pretty significant. There might be a way to peg the per recruit cost so that D1 and D2 are the same cost as FSS is now.